[15581] in APO-L
Service Requirement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul E Boal)
Wed Nov 13 21:05:48 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:35:50 -0600
Reply-To: Paul E Boal <paulb@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU>
From: Paul E Boal <paulb@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199611132033.OAA12010@artsci.wustl.edu>
> > I wish to stimulate conversation on a different topic. I am
> >curious as to what brothers around the country think of the amendment
> >(#A-9) that would require all brothers at all chapters to complete 20
> >hours of service per semester to remain actives in good standing. I don't
> >believe anything like this has been proposed recently so I have no idea as
> >to what people's opinion on this issue would be.
> >
>
> I would imagine most chapters would already have a similar requirement. In
> our chapter to remain active you must receive credit (or have the porential
> to receive credit) for half of all projects that semester. I think that
> this amendment is sightly frivolous in that it affirms something that
> already exists ( or should exist) in each chapter.
>
> Joseph J. Del Collo
> Gamma Lambda
I'm not sure I understand how your chapter works its service requirement,
but lots of chapters do very different things. Here at Alpha Phi Chapter
at Washington University, we require that a person attend a certain number
of hours of service at any combination of different projects. During the
entire semester, we send out several hundred projects and accumulate
usually over 2500 man hours in service from fewer than 100 active members.
As I'm interpreting the Gamma Lambda requirement, each person in our
chapter would have to attend more than 100 different service projects.
This comment is intended only to point out the differences in how chapters
operate their programs.
In the end, I'm sure both of our chapters' members accrue in excess of 20
hours. Unfortunately, however, I believe that there are chapters out
there more apathetic than ours. In an effort to help pull those chapters
up towards a higher goal, a national amendment is very reasonable.
Besides, if a chapter already has that requirement, what does it hurt to
make the requirement nation wide? The only thing it does is pushes
chapters with lower standards to increase their expectations. No harm
done...
Paul Boal
Alpha Phi Chapter
Washington University
St. Louis, MO
